IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO NO.1051 of 2025

Reserved on 18.11.2025

Decided on : 04.12.2025

Aditi Gupta

....Petitioner

V ersus

Akash Garg

....Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? No

For the petitioner : Ms. Rajni Gandhi,

Advocate vice, Mr. Rajiv

Rai, Advocate.

For the respondent : Nemo.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition

seeking transfer of the case titled “Aditi Gupta vs Akash Garg” filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shimla, H.P., to the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nahan, District

Sirmour, H.P.

2. It has been asserted that a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) was presented before the learned Jud.icial Magistrate, First Class, Shimla, H.P., which is pending disposal. The petitioner is employed asH a Junior Office Assistant (IT) with HPSIDC and was transferred from Shimla to Nahan. She is residing at Nahan along with her minor son, and she is unable to visit Shimla to continue the proceedings. There is no one to look after her minor child; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petition be transferred to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan.

3. Ms Rajni Gandhi, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that the Domestic Incident Report was instituted at Shimla because the petitioner was residing at Shimla. She has been transferred to Nahan, and it is very difficult for her to travel to Shimla to pursue the petition filed by her; hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the DIR be transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nahan. She relied upon the judgments of this Court in Privika Chandel v. Bhanu Pratap, CMPMO No. 355 of 2021, decided on 1.8.2023, Smt. Radha Vs. Guler Singh, CMPMO No. 309 of 2023, decided on 21.8.2023, Sapna Devi Kumari Vs. Dr Diwakar, CMPMO No. 363 of 2023, decided on 2.9.2024 and Monika Sharma Vs. Abhishek Gautam, CMOMO No. 662 of 2024, decided on 16.12.2024 in support of her submission.

4. I have given considoerable thought to the submissions made at the bar a nd have gone through the records carefully.

5. It is undisputed that the petitioner herself filed a petition at Shimla. She claims transfer of the petition to Nahan because of her transfer vide order dated 24.9.2023. First,h there is no explanation as to why the petitioner kept gwaiting for two years before seeking the transfer of the ipetition. Secondly, the petition has been filed on the grounds of the convenience of the petitioner. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 508 that mere inconvenience or hardship faced by a person from travelling from one place to another is no ground for transfer. It was observed:-

“65. For the purpose of transferring any case or proceedings under Section 406 of the Cr. P.C., the case must fall within the ambit of the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”.

Mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused may have to face in travelling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh would not fall within the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. The case must fall within any of the five situations as narrated in para 49 of this judgment. It is always open for the petitioner accused to pray for exemption from personal appearance or request thaft the Court that him may be permitted too join the proceedings online.”

6. The judgments in Privika Chandel (supra), Smt. Radha (supra) and Sapna Devi (supra), and Monika Sharma (supra) are concerned with the transfer of the cases which were instituted by the husband against the wife, and it was held by this Court that the convhenience of the wife is to be considered while gdetermining the place of adjudication. In the present case, ithe petition was not filed by the